[26–30 January 1917]

**I.**

H. Greulich declares at the beginning of his first article that there exist today (he surely means alleged) "Socialists" who "trust Junker and bourgeois governments."

This accusation of one current of contemporary "socialism"—namely, social-patriotism—is certainly correct. But what do all four articles of Comrade H. Greulich prove other than that he himself blindly "trusts" the "bourgeois government" of Switzerland?? He even forgets that the "bourgeois government" of Switzerland, through the manifold connections of Swiss banking capital, is not merely a "bourgeois government," but also an imperialist bourgeois government.

**II.**

H. Greulich acknowledges in his first article that there are two main currents in the entire international Social Democracy. He defines one of them (naturally, the social-patriotic one) quite correctly, branding its adherents as "agents" of bourgeois governments.

Strangely enough, Greulich forgets, first, that Swiss social-patriots are also agents of the Swiss bourgeois government; second, that just as Switzerland cannot be torn out of the network of world market connections, so too the present, highly developed, exceedingly wealthy bourgeois Switzerland cannot be torn out of the network of imperialist world relations; third, that it would be good to examine the arguments for and against national defense precisely throughout the entire international Social Democracy and especially in connection with these very imperialist, financial-capitalist, world relations; fourth, that it is impossible to reconcile these two main currents in the entire international Social Democracy and that consequently the Swiss party must choose which current it wishes to follow.

**III.**

H. Greulich declares in his second article: "Switzerland cannot wage a war of conquest."

Strangely enough, Greulich forgets the incontestable and patent fact that in both possible cases—namely, if Switzerland, in alliance with Germany, wages war against England, or in alliance with England wages war against Germany—in both cases Switzerland takes part in an imperialist war, in a war of plunder, in a war of conquest.

Bourgeois Switzerland can in no case either change the character of the present war or wage an anti-imperialist war at all.

Is it permissible that Greulich abandons "the ground of facts" (see his fourth article) and instead of speaking about this war speaks about some phantasmagoric war?

**IV.**

H. Greulich declares in his second article:

"Neutrality and national defense are for Switzerland identical. Whoever rejects national defense endangers neutrality. This one must understand clearly."

Two modest questions for Comrade Greulich.

First. Must one not clarify for oneself that trust in declarations of neutrality and intentions to preserve it in this war means not only blind trust in "one's own" "bourgeois government" and other "bourgeois governments," but is also directly laughable?

Second. Must one not understand that in reality the matter stands thus:

Whoever in this war recognizes national defense transforms himself into a helper of "his own" national bourgeoisie, which in Switzerland is thoroughly imperialist, inasmuch as it is bound to the great powers financially and is entangled in imperialist world politics.

Whoever in this war rejects national defense destroys the proletariat's confidence in the bourgeoisie and helps the international proletariat wage war against the rule of the bourgeoisie.

**V.**

H. Greulich declares at the conclusion of his second article:

"With the abolition of the Swiss militia army, wars between the great powers are not yet eliminated."

Why does Comrade Greulich forget that Social Democrats conceive of the abolition of any army (and consequently also of the militia) otherwise than after the victorious social revolution? that it is precisely now necessary to fight, in alliance with the internationalist-revolutionary minorities of all great powers, for social revolution?

From whom does Greulich expect the abolition of "wars between great powers"? From the militia of a million-strong bourgeois state?

We, Social Democrats, expect the abolition of "wars between great powers" from the revolutionary actions of the proletariat of all great and small powers.

**VI.**

In his third article, Greulich asserts that Swiss workers must "defend" "democracy"!!

Does Comrade Greulich truly not know that in this war no state in Europe defends democracy or can defend it? On the contrary, participation in this imperialist war means for all states, great and small, the strangulation of democracy, the victory of reaction over democracy. Does Greulich truly not know a thousand examples of this from England, Germany, France, and so on? Does Comrade Greulich truly "trust" so strongly in the Swiss, that is to say his own, "bourgeois government" that he takes all the bank directors and millionaires of Switzerland for genuine William Tells?

Not participation in the imperialist war, not participation in mobilizations allegedly for purposes of protecting neutrality, but revolutionary struggle against all bourgeois governments—this, and this alone, can bring socialism, and without socialism there is no guarantee for democracy!

**VII.**

Comrade Greulich writes in his third article:

"Does Switzerland really expect of the proletariat that it 'fight against itself in imperialist battles'?"

This question proves that Comrade Greulich stands with both feet on national ground, but unfortunately in the present war no such ground exists for Switzerland.

It is not Switzerland that "expects" this of the proletariat, but capitalism, which in all civilized countries, and also in Switzerland, has become imperialist capitalism. The rule of the bourgeoisie "now expects" of the proletariat of all countries that it "fight against itself in imperialist battles"—this is what Greulich forgets. In order to defend itself against such a situation, there is now no other means than the international revolutionary class struggle against the bourgeoisie!

Why does Greulich forget that already the Basel Manifesto of the International in 1912 explicitly recognized, first, that imperialist capitalism determines the basic character of the coming war; second, that it speaks there of proletarian revolution precisely in connection with this very war?

**VIII.**

Greulich writes in his third article:

Revolutionary mass struggle "instead of the use of democratic rights" is a "very indefinite concept."

This proves that Greulich recognizes exclusively the bourgeois-reformist path, but rejects or ignores revolution. This befits a Grütlian, but by no means a Social Democrat.

Revolutions are impossible without "revolutionary mass struggle." Such revolutions have never existed. Revolutions are also inevitable in Europe in the imperial epoch now beginning.

**IX.**

In his fourth article, Comrade Greulich explicitly declares that he will "of course" resign his mandate in the National Council if the party fundamentally rejects national defense. And he adds that this rejection would mean that we "destroy our unity."

This is a clear, unambiguous ultimatum presented by social-patriotic members of the National Council to the party. Either the party must recognize social-patriotic views, or "we" (Greulich, Müller, etc.) resign our mandates.

But, truthfully speaking, of what "unity" can one then speak? Of none other surely than of the "unity" of social-patriotic leaders with their National Council mandates?!

Principled proletarian unity means something entirely different: the social-patriots, that is, the "defenders of the fatherland," should be "united" with the social-patriotic, thoroughly bourgeois Grütli Association. The opponents of the defenders of the fatherland, the Social Democrats, should be "united" with the socialist proletariat. This is perfectly clear.

We firmly hope that Comrade Greulich will not shame himself and will not attempt to prove (despite the experience of England, Germany, Sweden, etc.) that the "unity" of social-patriots, the "agents" of bourgeois governments, with the socialist proletariat can lead to anything other than complete disorganization, demoralization, hypocrisy and lies.

**X.**

The "oath" of National Council members to protect the independence of the country is, according to Greulich's opinion, "incompatible" with the rejection of national defense.

Fine! But is any revolutionary activity "compatible" with "oaths" to respect the laws of capitalist states?? The Grütlians, that is, servants of the bourgeoisie, recognize in principle only legal means. To this day not a single Social Democrat has rejected revolutions or recognized only those compatible with the "oath" to respect bourgeois laws.

**XI.**

Greulich denies that Switzerland is a "bourgeois class state" in the "absolute sense of the word." He defines socialism (at the end of his fourth article) in such a way that social revolution and every revolutionary action completely disappear. Social revolution is a "utopia"—that is the short sense of all Greulich's long speeches and articles.

Fine! But that is the crudest Grütlianism, not socialism. That is bourgeois reformism, not socialism.

Why does Comrade Greulich not introduce a straightforward motion to strike from the Basel Manifesto of 1912 the words about "proletarian revolution"? to strike from the Aarau resolution of 1915 the words about "revolutionary mass actions"? to burn all the Zimmerwald and Kienthal resolutions?

**XII.**

Comrade Greulich stands with both feet on national ground—on bourgeois-reformist ground—on Grütlian ground.

He stubbornly ignores the imperialist character of the present war, as well as the imperialist connections of contemporary Swiss bourgeoisie. He ignores the split of socialists throughout the world into social-patriots and revolutionary internationalists.

He forgets that in reality only two paths lie open before the Swiss proletariat:

*First path.* Help its own national bourgeoisie arm itself, support mobilizations for the alleged purpose of protecting neutrality, and daily run the danger of being drawn into the imperialist war. In case of "victory" in such a war, to starve, to record 100,000 dead, to put new billions of war profits into the pockets of the Swiss bourgeoisie, to secure for it new profitable capital investments abroad, and to fall into new financial dependence on its imperialist "allies"—the great powers.

*Second path.* In the closest alliance with the internationalist-revolutionary minorities of all great powers, wage a ruthless struggle against all "bourgeois governments," and first of all against its own "bourgeois government," place no "trust" in its own